#g Walang People V Mendez.docx

UMIL VS. RAMOS [187 SCRA 311; G.R. NO. 81567; 3 OCT 1991] Facts: On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was received by their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. That the wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna however it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols. Issue: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arrested. Held: Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing as offense when arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing crimes. People v dela Cruz; G.R. No. 83260; 18 Apr 1990; 184 SCRA 416 FACTS: After receiving a confidential report from their informant, a buy-bust operation was conducted by a team from the 13th Narcotics Regional Unit to catch the pusher/s. At the scene, it was the accused-appellant who first negotiated with the poseur-buyer. Appellant instructed his co-accused to giveone aluminum foil of marijuana which the latter got from his pants’ pocket and delivered it to the buyer. After ascertaining that the authenticity of the marijuana, the agent gave signal. The two accused were arrested.

Facts: Pat. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado’s house at C. Quimpo to monitor activities of Edison SUCRO (accused). Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters away from Regalado’s house. Sucro was monitored to have talked and exchanged things three times. These activities are reported through radio to P/Lt. Seraspi. A third buyer was transacting with appellant and was reported and later identified as Ronnie Macabante. From that moment, P/Lt.Seraspi proceeded to the area. While the police officers were at the Youth Hostel in Maagama St. Fulgencio told Lt. Seraspi to intercept. Macabante was intercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing in front of Aklan Medical center. Macabante saw the police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on the ground. Macabante admitted buying the marijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel. The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. Quimpo and Veterans. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. Issue: Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful. Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible. Held: Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. Rule 126, Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything, which may be used as proff of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.(People v. Castiller) The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge required from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill requirements for its issuance. However, warantless search and seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed. The police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime from the surveillance of the activities of the accused. As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance, it is presumed that they are regularly in performance of their duties.

PEOPLE V. MENGOTE [210 SCRA 174; G.R. NO. 87059; 22 JUN 1992]

ISSUE(S): Whether or not the arrest was valid. Held: YES. While it is conceded that in a buy-bust operation, there is seizure of evidence from one’s person without a search warrant, needless to state a search warrant is not necessary, the search being incident to a lawful arrest. A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested was committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. It is a matter of judicial experience that in the arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy-bust operation, the malefactors were invariably caught red-handed. Judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED. PEOPLE VS. SUCRO [195 SCRA 388; G.R. No. 93239; 18 Mar 1991]

Facts: The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there were three suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place. The patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side, one of whom holding his abdomen. They approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to run but unable to escape because the other lawmen surrounded them. The suspects were then searched. One of them the accused-appellant was found with a .38 caliber with live ammunitions in it, while his companion had a fan knife. The weapons were taken from them and they were turned over to the police headquarters for investigation. An information was filed before the RTC convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm. A witness testified that the weapon was among the articles stolen at his shop, which he reported to the police including the revolver.

For his part, Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead, he claimed that the weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest. He was convicted for violation of P.D.1866 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized and therefore the fruit of a poisonous tree. Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. Held: An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art. III sec 32 of the Constitution. Rule 113 sec.5 of the Rules of Court, provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, (b) when the offense in fact has just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the person arrested has committed it and (c) the person to be arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers themselves. There was apparently no offense that has just been committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempt by Mengote in their presence. Moreover a person may not be stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained suspicion. Judgment is reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant is acquitted. People v Luisito Go Facts: On October 22, 1992, at around 10:00 oclock in the evening, SPO1 Mauro Piamonte and SPO3 Candido Liquido, members of the Intelligence and Follow-up Unit of the Calamba Police, went to the police outpost at Crossing, Calamba, Laguna, to follow up an intelligence report that methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a regulated drug, was being supplied there. Police civilian agent Ronnie Panuringan arrived and reported to them that he saw accused-appellant Luisito Go, also known as King Louie, enter the Flamingo Disco House with two women. Panuringan said that he spotted a gun tucked in accused-appellants waist. Together, the three policemen proceeded to the Flamingo, which was located about a hundred meters away from the outpost. When they arrived at the Flamingo, the police officers informed the owner that they were conducting an Operation Bakal, whereby they search for illegally possessed firearms. The owner allowed them in and told a waiter to accompany them. They went up to the second floor of the disco. The waiter turned on the lights, and the police officers saw accused-appellant and his lady companions seated at a table. They identified themselves and asked accused-appellant to stand up. When the latter did so, the policemen saw the gun tucked in his waist. SPO1 Piamonte asked for the license of the gun, but accused-appellant was unable to

produce any. Instead, accused-appellant brought out the drivers license of a certain Tan Antonio Lerios. SPO1 Piamonte confiscated the gun, which was later identified as a 9mm Walther P88, Serial Number 006784, with a magazine containing ten (10) rounds of live ammunition. Accused-appellant was invited to the police precinct for questioning. On the way out of the disco, accused-appellant asked permission to bring his car, which was parked outside. The police officers accompanied accused-appellant to his car, a Honda Civic with license plate number TCM-789. Through the windshield, SPO3 Liquido noticed a Philippine National Police identification card hanging from the rearview mirror. He asked accused-appellant if he was a member of the PNP, and he said no. The police officers asked accused-appellant for his drivers license and the registration papers of the vehicle, but he was unable to produce them. When accused-appellant opened the door, SPO3 Liquido took the ID card and found that the same belonged to SPO4 Zenaida Bagadiong. The police officers saw pieces of glass tooters and tin foils on the backseat and floor of the car. They asked accused-appellant why he had these items, but he did not say anything. Instead, accused-appellant suggested that they talk the matter over, and intimated that he had money. SPO3 Liquido replied that they should talk at the police headquarters. Accused-appellant took out an attach case from the car and opened it. There were two black clutch bags inside. Accused-appellant opened the first bag, which contained shiny white substance wrapped in cellophane. The second bag contained P120,000.00 in cash. The police officers brought accused-appellant to the police station. When they arrived at the precinct, they turned over the attach case together with the two black clutch bags to the investigator. The investigator found eight cellophane bags containing granules suspected to be shabu in one of the clutch bags. When the attach case was opened, the police officers found that it also contained three glass tooters, tin foils, an improvised burner, magazines and newspapers. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that the arrest and subsequent seizure were legal. Issue: WON the arrest is legal HELD: the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearm is AFFIRMED. The constitutional proscription, that no person shall be arrested without any warrant of arrest having been issued prior thereto,[8] is not a hard-and-fast rule. The Rules of Court and jurisprudence recognize exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected without a warrant.[9] Among these are when, in the presence of a peace officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; or when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. In the cases at bar, the police saw the gun tucked in appellants waist when he stood up. The gun was plainly visible. No search was conducted as none was necessary. Accused-appellant could not show any license for the firearm, whether at the time of his arrest or thereafter. Thus, he was in effect committing a crime in the presence of the police officers. No warrant of arrest was necessary in such a situation, it being one of the recognized exceptions under the Rules.

As a consequence of appellants valid warrantless arrest, he may be lawfully searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant, as provided in Rule 126, Section 12. This is a valid search incidental to the lawful arrest.[10] The subsequent discovery in his car of drug paraphernalia and the crystalline substance, which was later identified as shabu, though in a distant place from where the illegal possession of firearm was committed, cannot be said to have been made during an illegal search. As such, the seized items do not fall within the exclusionary clause, which states that any evidence obtained in violation of the right against warrantless arrest cannot be used for any purposes in any proceeding.[11] Hence, not being fruits of the poisonous tree, so to speak, the objects found at the scene of the crime, such as the firearm, the shabu and the drug paraphernalia, can be used as evidence against appellant. Besides, it has been held that drugs discovered as a result of a consented search is admissible in evidence

Facts: This case involves the unlawful sale of 250.70 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug, in violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The crime was allegedly committed as follows: That on or about the 8th day of December 1994, in the Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused (Baltazar Bongalon), not being lawfully authorized by law, and by means of motor vehicle, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to another, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag/sachet containing brown crystalline substance weighing 250.70 grams, which was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug, in violation of the above-cited law. When arraigned, the accused pled not guilty. Trial ensued. Issue: won the arrest valid

Larranaga vs CA Facts: Petitioner Larranaga was charged with two counts of kidnapping and serious illegaldetention before the RTC of Cebu City. He was arrested and was detained withoutthe filing of the necessary Information and warrant of arrest. The petitioner allegedthat he must be released and be subject to a preliminary investigation. However, pending the resolution of the Court for the petition for certiorari, prohibitionand mandamus with writs of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction filedby the petitioner, RTC judge issued a warrant of arrest directed to the petitioner. Issue :1.Whether petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation 2.Whether writ of habeas corpus should be granted in favor of petitioner. Held: 1.Yes. Our ruling is not altered by the fact that petitioner has been arraigned onOctober 14, 1997. The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation iswaived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering aplea at arraignment. Petitioner, in this case, has been actively andconsistently demanding a regular preliminary investigation even before hewas charged in court. Also, petitioner refused to enter a plea during thearraignment because there was a pending case in this Court regarding hisright to avail of a regular preliminary investigation. Clearly, the acts of petitioner and his counsel are inconsistent with a waiver. Preliminaryinvestigation is part of procedural due process. It cannot be waived unlessthe waiver appears to be clear and informed. 2.No. The filing of charges and the issuance of the warrant of arrest against aperson invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him the right to be released because of such defect.The originalwarrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, theRegional Trial Court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of thepetitioner by virtue of the warrant of arrest it issued on August 26, 1993 against him and the other accused in connection with the rape-slay cases. Itwas belated, to be sure, but it was nonetheless legal. Hence, the issuance of writ of habeas corpus may not apply in the case as there is no illegal confinement to speak of. People v Bongalon

Held: He was caught in flagrante delicto[49] selling shabu.[50] There was, therefore, no need for a warrant to effect his arrest pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal procedure. Said section provides: Sec. 5. Arrest, without warrant; when lawfulA peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; Moreover, the rule is that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him before his arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[52] Even in the instances not allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and objection thereto is waived where the person arrested submits to arraignment without objection. The subsequent filing of the charges and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest against a person illegally detained will cure the defect of that detention.[53] Next, the appellant claims that the search conducted in his house was unlawful. He also laments that the NARCOM agents robbed him of his personal properties during the search and they received money from his relatives after his arrest. This Court need not tarry on the validity of the said search for the appellant consented to the search. He admitted that he voluntarily accompanied the policemen to his house.[54] As for the charges of robbery and extortion, as in the alleged unlawful search made in his house, those incidents transpired after his arrest. Whether true or not, his liability for the unlawful sale of shabu remains. As we have earlier stated, the appellants denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. We are not unaware of the perception that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, like alibi, frame-up is a defense that has been viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can easily be concocted, hence, commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the policemens alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists.

People vs Recepcion At about one-thirty on the morning of 28 July 1999 in Sabungan Fastfood and Videoke Pub, Diosdado Recepcion, Alfredo Baracas, Joemari delos Reyes, Bernardo Ranara, Dominador Recepcion, Robert Alfonso and Audie Dona, entered the pub. The men occupied table 12 and ordered beer from waitress Eliza Bautista. A few minutes later, three men from the group transferred to table 10. Just as Marie (waitress) was approaching table 13 to get the microphone from a customer, one of the men stood up and fired his gun at another customer. Another from the group pull out a gun and shot a customer, Rodolfo Ortega, while on his knees. The group gone berserk and started shooting indiscriminately inside the pub. Even when the group are about the last of the group who left the pub, was still firing his gun. When the shooting finally stopped, five lifeless bodies of men were found sprawled on the floor, - Benjamin Valdez, Augusto Billodo, Renato Cleofas, Rodolfo Ortega and Ruperto San Juan. Ruben Labjata, a jeepney driver, was waiting for passengers at Dagohoy Street, Caloocan City, when he heard gunshots. When, unexpectedly, 8 men arrived and ordered all the passengers to get off the vehicle. The gun men told Labjata to go north until they finally reached, hours later, Paniqui, Tarlac. When the group reach Paniqui, Tarlac they alighted, four of the men rode Conrado Marquez tricycle, while the other four took two more tricycles. Marquez brought the group to Brgy. Coral, Ramos, Tarlac. Around lunchtime on 29 July 1999, the Bulacan Police invited Ruben Labjata for questioning. Taken by police authorities to Tarlac, he pointed to the exact place where the armed men got off from his vehicle. Conrado Marquez, likewise invited by the police for interrogation, readily informed the police of the place where he brought the men who hired his tricycle. The police promptly cordoned the area and the group, surrendered after several calls by the police. The group were charged with multiple murder, violation of P.D. No. 1866, and robbery in band before the Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City. Issue: WON the warrantless arrest made by the police was valid? (ginawa kasi yung warrantless arrest almost 1 and a half day pagkatapos ng insidente) Held: Yes. The arrest of appellants has been made in hot pursuit, an exception from the rule that warrantless arrests are illegal. (Ito lang ang sinabi ng SC about hot pursuit, pero nadiscuss na natin to kay Atty. Gallant, and doctrine daw ng kaso na to ay na kahit isang araw na nakalipas nung ginawa yung crimen valid pa rin yung warrantless arrest dito na hot pursuit) In any event, appellants can no longer assail the illegality of their arrest since such a claim has not been brought up before or during the arraignment. The failure to timely move for the quashal of the Information on this basis operates as a waiver of the right to question the supposed irregularity of the arrest. People v Bohol Facts: On August 2, 2002, at around 8:30 p.m., a confidential informant came to the police station and tipped P/Sr. Insp. Jessie Nitullano that a certain Ricardo Bohol is engaged in illegal drug trade in Isla Puting Bato, Tondo, Manila. P/Sr. Insp. Nitullano then formed a team of six police operatives to verify the informant’s tip, and, if found positive, to launch then and there a buy-bust entrapment of Bohol. PO2 Ferdinand Estrada was assigned to act as poseur buyer, and he was provided with a marked ₱100-bill as buy-bust money. Between 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. of the same day, the team proceeded to the site of their operation. Guided by the informant, PO2 Estrada proceeded to the house

of Bohol, whom they saw standing beside the stairs of his house. Following a short introduction, PO2 Estrada and the informant told Bohol of their purpose. Bohol asked, "How much?" to which PO2 Estrada replied, "Piso lang" (meaning ₱100 worth of shabu) and handed to the former the marked ₱100-bill. In turn, Bohol gave PO2 Estrada a plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules which the latter suspected to be shabu. The illicit transaction having been consummated, PO2 Estrada gave to his companions their pre-arranged signal. Emerging from their hiding places, PO2 Luisito Gutierrez and his companions arrested Bohol. PO2 Gutierrez frisked Bohol and recovered from him the buy-bust money and three plastic sachets containing similar white crystalline granules suspected to be shabu. Consequently, the police officers brought Bohol to the police station and the confiscated four plastic sachets of white crystalline substance were subjected to laboratory examination. The specimens were confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. Upon arraignment, Bohol entered a plea of "not guilty" to both charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. He was guilty. ISSUE: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT’S SEARCH AND ARREST AS ILLEGAL. HELD: In the present case, the arresting officers were justified in arresting Bohol as he had just committed a crime when he sold the shabu to PO2 Estrada. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. Considering the legality of Bohol’s warrantless arrest, the subsequent warrantless search that resulted in the seizure of the shabu found in his person is likewise valid. In a legitimate warrantless arrest, the arresting police officers are authorized to search and seize from the offender (1) any dangerous weapons and (2) the things which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.14 The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions. This Court has ruled that the following instances constitute valid warrantless searches and seizures: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view; (5) search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. PEOPLE V BAGISTA FACTS: On July 4, 1988, at around 8:00 o’clock in the morning, the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) Detachment Office located at the Arix Building, Bokawkan Road, Baguio City, received information from one of its regular informants that a certain woman, 23 years of age, with naturally curly hair, and with a height of 5’2" or 5’3", would be transporting marijuana from up north. 1 Acting upon this piece of information, Sgt. Oscar Parajas testified that he, Sgt. Godofredo Fider and a civilian NARCOM agent proceeded to Km. 16, Acop, Tublay, Benguet. Upon arriving at said location at around 11:00 o’clock that same morning, they established a checkpoint and flagged down all vehicles, both private and public, coming from the north to check if any of these vehicles were carrying marijuana leaves on board. After about 4 1/2 hours, the NARCOM agents stopped a Dangwa Tranco bus with Plate No. AVD 938 and body number 428, which came from Lepanto, Benguet. Sgts. Parajas and Fider boarded the bus and thereupon Sgt. Parajas announced to the passengers that they were NARCOM agents and that they were going to search

their baggages. Sgt. Parajas then proceeded to the rear of the bus while Sgt. Fider began inspecting the bags in the front. While at the back, Sgt. Parajas noticed a woman with curly hair seated at the right side (as one is facing the driver) of the last seat of the bus, with a travelling bag with black and orange stripes 4 on her lap. Sgt. Parajas inspected the bag and discovered three (3) bundles of marijuana leaves covered by assorted clothing. The bag and the contents thereof were confiscated and the woman arrested; she was later brought to the NARCOM office in Baguio City where she was booked and investigated. The woman was then identified as Accused-Appellant. 5 The confiscated bundles were subjected to laboratory examination, and found positive for marijuana. ISSUE: won THERE IS VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST HELD: The general rule regarding searches and seizures can be stated in this manner: no person shall be subjected to a search of his person, personal effects or belongings, or his residence except by virtue of a search warrant or on the occasion of a lawful arrest. 14 The basis for the rule can be found in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which states:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose, shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."cralaw virtua1aw library. Article III, Section 3 (2) further ordains that any evidence obtained in violation of the aforementioned right shall, among others, "be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding."cralaw virtua1aw library The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, 15 and the seizure of evidence in plain view. With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. This in no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. The NARCOM officers in the case at bar had probable cause to stop and search all vehicles coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet in view of the confidential information they received from their regular informant that a woman having the same appearance as that of accused-appellant would be bringing marijuana from up north. They likewise have probable cause to search accused-appellant’s belongings since she fits the description given by the NARCOM informant. Since there was a valid warrantless search by the NARCOM agents, any evidence obtained during the course of said search is admissible against Accused-Appellant. PEOPLE V GERENTE Facts: Edna Edwina Reyes testified that appellant Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren, started drinking liquor and smoking marijuana in the house of the appellant which is about six (6) meters away from

the house of the prosecution witness who was in her house on that day. She overheard the three men talking about their intention to kill Clarito Blace. Appellant allegedly agreed: “Sigue, papatayin natin mamaya.” Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerente carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p.m. of the same day. The prosecution witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, testified that she witnessed the killing. Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against Clarito Blace, followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him twice with a piece of wood in the head and when he fell, Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow block on the victim’s head. Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house of Gerente. At about 4:00 p.m. of the same day, Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela Police Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling incident. He went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought. He was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. The cause of death was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object. Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police Corporal Romeo Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident took place. There they found a piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. They were informed by the prosecution witness, Edna Edwina Reyes that she saw the killing and she pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of the three men who killed Clarito. The policemen proceeded to the house of the appellant who was then sleeping. They told him to come out of the house and they introduced themselves as policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked appellant and found a coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. The dried leaves were sent to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination. The Forensic Chemist found them to be marijuana. When arraigned the appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial of the two cases was held. The trial court rendered a decision convicting him of Violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6425 and of Murder.

the person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed.

Issue: Whether the Personal Knowledge of the policeman of the crime committed by the accused is justified and valid in arresting the latter without securing an arrest and search warrant.

HELD: 1. No. Anent the first defense, petitioner questions the legality of his arrest. There is no dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner, but that per se did not make his apprehension at the Abacan Bridge illegal. Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure—a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person (a) when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. When caught in flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammo, petitioner’s warrantless arrest was proper since he was actually committing another offence in the presence of all those officers. There was no supervening event or a considerable lapse of time between the hit and run and the actual apprehension. Because arrest was legal, the pieces of evidence are admissible. Instances when warrantless search and seizure of property is valid:a. Seizure of evidence in “plain view,” elements of which are (a) prior valid intrusion based on valid warrantless arrest in which police are legally present in pursuit of official duties, (b) evidence inadvertedly discovered by police who had the right to be there, (c) evidence immediately apparent, and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search (People v. Evaristo: objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertedly found in plain view are subject to seizure even without a warrant) b. Search of moving vehicle c. Warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest recognized under section 12, Rule 126 of Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence where the test of incidental search (not excluded by exclusionary rule) is that item to be searched must be within arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control and search contemporaneous with arrest. Petitioner

Held: Yes, “To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in many instances.” The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions did. The search conducted on Gerente’s person was likewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.” The frisk and search of appellant’s person upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for

PADILLA V CA Facts: Padilla figured in a hit and run accident in Oct 26, 1992. He was later on apprehended with the help pf a civilian witness. Upon arrest following high powered firearms were found in his possession: 1. .357 caliber revolver with 6 live ammunition 2. M-16 Baby Armalite magazine with ammo 3. .380 pietro beretta with 8 ammo 4. 6 live double action ammo of .38 caliber revolver Padilla claimed papers of guns were at home. His arrest for hit and run incident modified to include grounds of Illegal Possession of firearms. He had no papers. On Dec. 3, 1994, Padilla was found guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearms under PD 1866 by the RTC of Angeles City. He was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty from 17 years. 4 months, 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 21 years of reclusion perpetua as maximum. The Court of Appeals confirmed decision and cancelled bailbond. RTC of Angeles City was directed to issue order of arrest. Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals. Padilla filed lots of other petitions and all of a sudden, the Solicitor General made a complete turnaround and filed “Manifestation in Lieu of Comment” praying for acquittal (nabayaran siguro). Issues: 1. WARRANTLESS ARREST: WON his was illegal and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule 2. LICENSE TO CARRY: WON the petitioner is authorized, under a Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt, to carry the subject firearms

would nonetheless insist on the illegality of his arrest by arguing that the policemen who actually arrested him were not at the scene of the hit and run. The court begs to disagree. It is a reality that curbing lawlessness gains more success when law enforcers function in collaboration with private citizens. Furthermore, in accordance with settled jurisprudence, any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea. 2. No. In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, two requisites must be established, viz.: (1) the existence of the subject firearm and, (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess. The first element is beyond dispute as the subject firearms and ammunitions were seized from petitioner’s possession via a valid warrantless search, identified and offered in evidence during trial. As to the second element, the same was convincingly proven by the prosecution. Indeed, petitioner’s purported Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt are inferior in the face of the more formidable evidence for the prosecution as our meticulous review of the records reveals that the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were mere afterthoughts contrived and issued under suspicious circumstances. On this score, we lift from respondent court’s incisive observation. Furthermore, the Memorandum Receipt is also unsupported by a certification as required by the March 5, 1988 Memorandum of the Secretary of Defense. Petitioner is not in the Plantilla of Non-Uniform personnel or in list of Civilian Agents of Employees of the PNP, which would justify issuance of mission order (as stated in PD 1866). Lastly, the M-16 and any short firearms higher than 0.38 caliber cannot be licensed to a civilian. People v Sinoc Facts: It appears that on September 20, 1991, at about 6 oclock in the morning, Isidoro Viacrusis, manager of Taganito Mining Corporation, was motoring from the company compound (at Taganito, Claver, Surigao del Norte) to Surigao City. He was riding on a company vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero (with Plate No. DFX-397), driven by Tarcisio Guijapon. As Viacrusis and Guijapon were approaching the public cemetery of Claver, they were stopped by several armed men. The latter, identifying themselves as members of the New Peoples Army (NPA), boarded the Pajero and ordered Guijapon to proceed. When they reached Barobo, Surigao del Norte, the armed men ordered Viacrusis and Guijapon to alight, led them, their hands bound behind their back, to a coconut grove some six meters from the road, and after making them lie face down on the ground, shot them several times. Viacrusis miraculously survived. The driver, Guijapon, was not as lucky; he died on the spot. These facts set forth in, among others, a sworn statement given to the police by Sinoc, infra, and an affidavit executed and sworn to by Viacrusis on October 17, 1991, about a month later.[7] In that affidavit, Viacrusis described the armed men who had kidnapped and shot him and Guijapon. The only malefactor he was able to identify by name, however, was Danilo Sinoc who, he said, had curly hair, (was) known as Colot (Danilo Sinoc), (and was known to ) driver Tarcing. Danilo Sinoc was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two cases jointly tried:[1] one, of the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder and the other, of the complex crime of kidnapping with frustrated murder Issue: won the there was valid arrest Held: the law provides that an arrest without warrant may be licitly effected by a peace officer, inter alia When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.[15]

There is no question that the police officers in this case were aware that an offense had just been committed: i.e., that some twelve hours earlier, a Pajero belonging to a private company had been stolen (carnapped) and its driver and passenger shot, the former having died and the latter being on the verge of death. Nor is there any doubt that an informer (asset) had reported that the stolen Pajero was at the Bliss Housing Project at the Moncayo. It was precisely to recover the Pajero that a team composed of SPO1 Micheal Aringo and joint elements of 459 PNP MFC and Monkayo Police Stn. Led by Insptr. Eden T. Ugale, went to that place and, on taking custody of the Pajero, forthwith dispatched a radio message to Higher Headquarters advising of that fact.[16] There is no question either that when SPO1 Aringo and his companions reached the place where the Pajero was parked, they were told by Paulino Overa, owner of the apartment behind which the vehicle was parked, that the man who had brought the Pajero would be back by 12:00 noon; that the person thus described did in fact show up at about 10:00 A.M., and was immediately identified by Overa as the one who rode on that car pajero;'[17] just as there is no question that when the police officers accosted him, Sinoc had the key to the stolen Pajero and was in the act of moving toward it admittedly to take possession of it (after having arrived by bus from Tagum together with another suspect, Ram). Sinocs link to the stolen vehicle (and hence to the kidnapping and killing accompanying its asportation) was thus palpable. The foregoing circumstances left the police officers no alternative save to arrest Sinoc and take possession of the Pajero. His arrest without warrant was justified; indeed, it was in the premises the officers clear duty to apprehend him; their omission to do so would have been inexcusable.

and eight o'clock in the evening, and that, fifteen minutes later, accused-appellants also left. SPO4 Mirande, with several policemen, repaired to the respective houses of accused-appellants. The policemen asked Ruben Baula and Crisanto Baula for the clothing they wore on the night of the murder. Ruben Baula gave his bloodstained pair of short pants, and Crisanto Baula turned over his bloodstained polo shirt. The policemen next went to the hut of Danilo Dacucos. Inside the hut, the group found hanging on the wall a bloodstained bolo. The bloodstained pair of short pants, polo shirt and bolo, together with the victim's dried blood samples,[3] were sent on the same day to the National Bureau of Investigation, Dagupan City Branch Office,[4] for forensic examination. The results of the examination[5] disclosed that the bloodstains[6] found in the bolo,[7] the bloodstains[8] on the polo shirt[9] and the bloodstains[10] on the pair of short pants[11] had the same type "O" blood as that of the victim. The defense had another version of the incident. Wilson Radovan, the barangay captain of Siwasiw, Sual, Pangasinan, testified that on 13 December 1995, at around eight o'clock in the evening, while he and the other barangay officials were at their outpost, they heard the cry of a woman asking for help. Rushing out, they saw Teofila Uson, a barangay mate, who told them that she and Patrocinia Caburao were being pelted with stones. Teofila Uson said that it was too dark to be able to identify the person who had attacked them. When the group proceeded to the place of the incident, they saw the lifeless body of Patrocinia Caburao, beside the road, near the creek. Radovan testified that he did not notice any other person in the place where the incident occurred. He requested Gene Macatiao, the son-in-law of the victim and one of those who first arrived in the scene, to inform their relatives and the police.

People v Baula Facts: a On 13 December 1995, at around eight oclock in the evening, Jupiter Caburao, decided to follow his mother, Patrocinia Caburao, who had earlier left their house at Barangay Siwasiw West, Sual, Pangasinan, to settle her due obligations at a store, about one-and-a-half kilometers away, owned by a certain Brigida Tumamang. While traversing the road towards the store, Jupiter noticed a commotion near the creek about ten meters away from him. He focused his flashlight towards the direction where he heard the commotion and saw accusedappellants Crisanto Baula and Danilo Dacucos in the act of hacking a person who was lying on the ground, while accused-appellants Robert Baula and Ruben Baula stood as lookouts. The assault lasted for about four minutes. Accused-appellants fled but not before they had threatened Jupiter with death if he were to divulge the incident to anyone. Jupiter went near the lifeless body of the victim who turned out to be his own mother. Her head and face sustained four hacking wounds, two of which damaged her brain tissues. Jupiter rushed home and brought his niece and nephew to the house of a neighbor for their safety. For fear of reprisal from accused-appellants and believing that the police would be able to solve the gory killing on their own, Jupiter did not reveal the carnage to either his relatives or the police.

Ruben Baula testified that in the morning of 13 December 1995, he, together with his co-accused and other companions, namely, Pepito Ramos, Amber Pagudpod, Francis Amistad and Reny, were harvesting palay, at Sitio Binabalian, Siwasiw West, Sual, Pangasinan, on the land being tenanted by Crisanto Baula. He recounted that they were there until 4:55 in the afternoon at about which time Crisanto Baula invited the group to eat "merienda" in the nearby canteen of Brigida Tumamang. He noticed that when they arrived at the store, there were three other persons partaking of drinks. At about twilight, they left the store of Brigida Tumamang and proceeded to their respective residences, leaving behind the three persons who continued with their drinking spree. At about three o'clock in the morning of 14 December 1995, while he was asleep, four policemen and several barangay officials arrived and asked him if he knew who had killed Patrocinia Caburao. Although he denied any knowledge about the killing, the policemen, nevertheless, invited him to accompany them to the house of Robert Baula. Arriving thereat, the policemen likewise questioned the latter about the killing of Patrocinia Caburao. Robert Baula, like his co-accused Ruben Baula, denied any knowledge of the killing. After the interrogation, the police authorities allowed them to go. Ruben and Robert Baula both vehemently denied that the police ever took any clothing from them.

About two o'clock in the morning of 14 December 1995, the police authorities, led by SPO4 Fermin Mirande, went to the locus criminis, and took pictures of the body of the victim.[2] The investigation revealed that before the victim was killed, she had been to Brigida Tumamang's store; that accused-appellants were also at the store having a drinking spree; that the victim left the store between seven o'clock

Accused-appellants, Crisanto Baula and Danilo Dacucos, corroborated the testimony of their co-accused, Ruben and Robert Baula, in its material points, claiming that in the morning of 13 December 1995, they went to Sitio Binabalian to harvest palay; that in the afternoon, they took their merienda at the store of Brigida Tumamang; and that, thereafter, they went home leaving behind the three persons

still indulging in drinks at the store of Brigida Tumamang.ccused-appellants were charged with murder. "That on or about the 13th day of December 1995, in the evening, in barangay Sioasio West, Municipality of Sual, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with a bolo (tabas), with abuse of superior strength, treachery and evident premeditation and intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab Patrocenia Caburao, inflicting upon her the following: 1. Hacking wound - 3 inches in length; 2 inches deep Rt. Occipital region (nape area) exposing brain tissue; 2. Hacking wound - 4 inches in length; 2 inches deep at mid occipital area exposing damage brain tissue; 3. Hacking wound - 4 inches in length; 1/2 inch deep facial area running across the Rt. Cheek and left cheek including the nasal area; 4. Hacking wound - 2 inches in height; 1 inch deep at the vertex (top of the head); 5. Abrasion; confluent at the back area. Cause of death - Brain tissue injury secondary to mortal wounds above which injuries directly caused her death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said Patrocenia Caburao.Contrary to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code." When arraigned, the accused all entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. Trial shortly thereafter ensued. The relevant facts and events that transpired, according to the prosecution, were briefly narrated in the People's Brief. Accused was convicted Issue: won the arresting officer has personal knowledge Held: None. Proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is not absolute, of course, and the Court has had occasions to rule that a warrantless search and seizure of property is valid under certain circumstances. There can, for instance, be a lawful warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rules 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; or seizure of evidence in "plain view," its elements being extant;[27] or search of a moving vehicle;[28] or consented search; or customs search.[29] The situation here in question, however, can hardly come within the purview of any of the established exceptions. In a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, the arrest itself must have to be effected under the circumstances enumerated by law. One such case is when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the peace officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.[30] Accused-appellants were not being arrested at the time that the subject articles were allegedly taken from them but were just being questioned by the police officers conducting the investigation about the death of Patrocinia Caburao. The investigating officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed the crime. Being in no position to effect a warrantless arrest, the police officers were thus likewise barred from effecting a warrantless search and seizure. the police officers acted on a mere suspicion that accusedappellants could be responsible for the commission of the crime and only because of their being at the store where the victim was last seen. Mere suspicion cannot satisfy the requirement of probable cause which signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he can be charged.[32] An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on the strength of the evidence yielded by that search.[33]

The Court finds it less than credible the stance of the prosecution that the polo shirt and short pants have been voluntarily given. An alleged consent to a warrantless search and seizure cannot be based merely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty.[34] This presumption, by itself, cannot prevail against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual, and zeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FIDEL ABRENICA CUBCUBIN, JR., accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 136267. July 10, 2001] Facts: At about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997, Sgt. Rogel, desk officer of the Cavite City police station, received a telephone call that a person had been shot near the cemetery along Julian Felipe Boulevard in San Antonio, Cavite City. For this reason, a police team, composed of SPO1 Malinao, Jr., PO3 Rosal, PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, and SPO3 Manalo, responded to the call and found Henry P. Piamonte slumped dead on his tricycle which was then parked on the road. Police photographer Fred Agana took pictures of the crime scene showing the victim slumped on the handle of the tricycle. PO3 Rosal testified that a tricycle driver, who refused to divulge his name, told him that Fidel Abrenica Cubcubin Jr. and the victim were last seen together coming out of the Sting Cafe, located in San Antonio near the gate of Sangley Point, Cavite City, about a kilometer and a half away from the crime scene. Forthwith, PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. went to the cafe and talked to Danet Garcellano, a food server/waitress in Sting Cafe. Garcellano described Cubcubin as a lean, dark-complexioned, and mustachioed man who had on a white t-shirt and brown short pants. Armando Plata, another tricycle driver, told PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. that Garcellano's description fitted a person known as alias "Jun Dulce." Armando Plata, who knew where Cubcubin lived, led PO3 Rosal, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., and Prosecutor Lu to Cubucubin's house in Garcia Extension, Cavite City. The policemen knocked on the door for about 3 minutes before it was opened by a man who answered the description given by Danet Garcellano and who turned out to be Cubcubin. The police operatives identified themselves and informed him that he was being sought in connection with the shooting near the cemetery. Cubcubin denied involvement in the incident. PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked permission to enter and look around the house. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said that upon entering the house, he noticed a white tshirt, bearing the brand name "Hanes" and the name "Dhenvher" written in the inner portion of the shirt's hemline, placed over a divider near the kitchen. Upon close examination, he said that he found it to be "bloodied." When he picked up the t-shirt, two spent .38 caliber shells fell from it. PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin while he conducted a search. They then took the t-shirt and the two bullet shells. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked Cubcubin to go with them to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification. There, Cubcubin was positively identified by Danet Garcellano as the victim's companion. The police investigators asked Cubcubin where the fatal gun was. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said Cubcubin refused to tell him where he hid the gun so he sought the latter's permission to go back to his house to conduct a further search. Thereupon, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., accompanied by Prosecutor Lu, PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, SPO3 Manalo, and PO3 Rosal, proceeded thereto. Inside the house, they saw Cubcubin's 11-year old son Jhumar. PO3 Estoy, Jr. found on top of a plastic water container (drum) outside the bathroom a homemade Smith and Wesson caliber .38 revolver (six shooter), without a serial number. He found the gun loaded

with five live bullets. PO3 Estoy, Jr. said that he inscribed his initials "RDE" (for Raymundo D. Estoy) on the cylinder of the gun with the use of a sharp object. While PO3 Estoy,Jr. was conducting the search, SPO1 Malinao, Jr. and PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin in the sala. The .38 caliber gun, the white "Hanes" t-shirt, and the two spent .38 caliber shells were all photographed. Cubcubin was then taken to the police station, where he was photographed along with the things seized from him. Cubcubin was charged for the crime of murder. On 5 October 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, found Cubcubin guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. Hence, the automatic review. Issue: Whether there was "probable cause" for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the arresting officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime, to allow them to conduct the latter's warrantless arrest. Held: Rule 113, §5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that "A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another." Under §5(b), two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid: first, the offender has just committed an offense and, second, the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. It has been held that "personal knowledge of facts' in arrests without a warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion." Herein, the arrest of Cubcubin was effected shortly after the victim was killed. There was no "probable cause, however, for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the arresting officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime. The two did not have "personal knowledge of facts" indicating that Cubcubin had committed the crime. Their knowledge of the circumstances from which they allegedly inferred that Cubcubin was probably guilty was based entirely on what they had been told by others, to wit: by someone who called the PNP station in San Antonio, Cavite City at about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997 and reported that a man had been killed along Julian Felipe Boulevard of the said city; by an alleged witness who saw Cubcubin and the victim coming out of the Sting Cafe; by Danet Garcellano, waitress at the Sting Cafe, who said that the man last seen with the victim was lean, mustachioed, dark-complexioned and was wearing a white t-shirt and a pair of brown short pants; by a tricycle driver named Armando Plata who told them that the physical description given by Garcellano fitted Cubcubin, alias "Jun Dulce" and who said he knew where Cubcubin lived and accompanied them to Cubcubin's house. Thus, PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. merely relied on information given to them by others. Be that as it may, Cubcubin cannot now question the validity of his arrest without a warrant. The records show that he pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on 11 November 1997. Cubcubin did not object to the arraignment, and thus has waived the right to object to the legality of his arrest. On the other hand, the search of Cubcubin's house was illegal and, consequently, the things obtained as a result of the illegal search, i.e., the white "Hanes" t-shirt, two spent shells, and the .38 caliber gun, are inadmissible in evidence against him. It cannot be said that the .38 caliber gun was discovered through inadvertence. After bringing Cubcubin to the Sting Cafe where he was

positively identified by a waitress named Danet Garcellano as the victim's companion, the arresting officers allegedly asked Cubcubin where he hid the gun used in killing the victim. According to SPO1 Malinao, Jr., when Cubcubin refused to answer, he sought Cubcubin's permission to go back to his house and there found the .38 caliber revolver on top of a plastic water container outside the bathroom. Thus, the gun was purposely sought by the police officers and they did not merely stumble upon it. Nor were the police officers justified in seizing the white "Hanes" t-shirt placed on top of the divider "in plain view" as such is not contraband nor is it incriminating in nature which would lead SPO1 Malinao, Jr. to conclude that it would constitute evidence of a crime. Contrary to what SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said, the t-shirt was not "bloodied" which could have directed his attention to take a closer look at it. From the photograph of the t-shirt, it is not visible that there were bloodstains. The actual t-shirt merely had some small specks of blood at its lower portion. Furthermore, there is no evidence to link Cubcubin directly to the crime. PEOPLE vs KIMURA G.R. No. 130805 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: FACTS: 1. Tomohisa Kimura and Akira Kizaki (respondents) seek the reversal of the decision finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA No. 7659 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and pay P 50,000.00. 2. On June 27, 1994, the two were accused to transport and deliver 40,768 grams of Indian hemp (marijuana) in Cash & Carry, Makati City. Kimura and Kizaki entered separate pleas of NOT GUILTY. 3. The version of prosecution maintains that in the morning of June 27, 1994, Maj. Anso, head of Delta Group, Narcotics Command received information from a confidential informant that a certain Koichi Kishi and Rey Plantilla were engaged in the selling of illegal drugs at the Cash and Carry Supermarket, Maj. Anso organized a team composed of SPO4 Baldovino, Jr., SPO1 Cabato and PO3 Cadoy to conduct surveillance of the area. A buy-bust operation was launched. • 3:00 in the afternoon, the informant was able to contact the targets who told him that they will be arriving at 8:00 in the evening at the parking area. After handing to him the marijuana, the operatives approached, PO3 Cadoy held Koichi by the hand while Rey scampered away to the direction of the South Superhighway. They learned from Koichi that his friends/suppliers will arrive the same evening to fetch him. Several minutes later, a white Nissan Sentra car driven by appellant Kimura with his co-appellant Kizaki seating at the passenger seat arrived at the parking area. Koichi pointed to them as the ones who will fetch him. • A certain Boy driving a stainless jeep, without a plate number, arrived and parked. Boy approached the Sentra car and opened its trunk. Appellant Kimura got a package wrapped in a newspaper and gave it to Boy who walked back to his jeep. While Maj. Anso and SPO4 Baldovino, Jr. were approaching, appellant Kimura ran but was apprehended while Boy was able to board his jeep and together with a Kizaki who was seated at the passenger seat sped off towards South Superhighway. Police found 3 Sacks of marijuana. They brought Koichi and Kimura to the headquarters and turned over the seized marijuana to the investigator who made markings thereon. 4. Kimura’s testimony explains that on June 27, 1994, Kimura was in the house of his co-appellant Kizaki at Dian Street, Makati City, together with Koichi Kishi, Luis Carlos and a certain "Sally" and "Boy". Kimura borrowed the car of Kizaki

in order to get his television from his house in Evangelista to bring it to a repair shop. Koichi requested Kimura to pass by Cash and Carry Supermarket because he needed to meet a certain "Rey" who was borrowing money from him. When they alighted from the car and Koichi handed something to Rey. Shortly thereafter, Koichi and Carlos were grabbed by two men from behind. Then four men approached the car and one guy ordered him to sit at the back and together with Koichi and Carlos, they were all brought to Camp Karingal allegedly for violating Sec. 4 of Republic Act No. 6425.32 Kimura was asked questions about the address and business of Kizaki. Kimura denied that there was marijuana in the car on the night of June 27, 1994 but claims that he saw marijuana placed at the car trunk the following day at Camp Karingal. Kizaki was not with him at Cash and Carry on the night of June 27, 1994. There was no stainless jeep near the car on the same night. Carlos was released and was not charged because Kimura’s girlfriend, Sally, served as Carlos’ guarantor. 5. Kizaki testified that Kizaki testified that on the date that the alleged crime was committed, he was in the company of his friends, Mr. and Mrs. Takeyama, Kimura, and his driver Boy and maid Joan at his house in Dian Street, Makati City; Kimura borrowed his car on the night of June 27, 1994 to pick up Kimura’s broken TV and bring it to the repair shop. Appellant Kizaki’s alibi was corroborated by Rosario Quintia, his former housemaid, and his friend, Akiyoshi Takeyama, who both testified that they were at Kizaki’s house on the night of June 27, 1994 from 7:00 to 10:00 in the evening and never saw Kizaki leave the house. Kizaki was arrested on June 29, 1994, two days after the Cash and Carry incident, in the Nippon IchiRestaurant located at Mabini, Manila. He was having dinner with Lt. Col. Rodolfo Tan, Masami Y. Nishino, Anita Takeyama and Akiyoshi Takeyama. These witnesses executed a joint affidavit and testified that while they were about to leave the restaurant, a man got near Kizaki and asked for his passport whom they thought was from the Immigration. Later, they learned that Kizaki was brought to Camp Karingal. ISSUE: WoN the warrantless arrests of the respondents valid? HELD: The settled jurisprudence is that alibi is inherently a weak defense. Denial by the accused of the offense charged against him is also inherently a weak defense. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that it was impossible for him to have been at the scene of the commission of the crime at the time of its commission. Cash and Carry Supermarket is walking distance from the house of Kizaki. It was not therefore impossible for accused to have been present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. The illegality of warrantless arrest cannot deprive the state of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to their culpability. Appellants claim that although the defense of alibi and denial are weak, it is still the duty of the prosecution to provethe guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt to support a judgment of conviction; that the trial court mainly relied on the weakness of the defense rather than on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution. They argue that appellant Kizaki’s claim that he was not at the Cash and Carry Supermarket on the night of June 27, 1994 was corroborated by three independent witnesses including appellant Kimura who testified that he was not with appellant Kizaki at Cash and Carry Supermarket. Appellants further question how the trial court could have been certain that the marijuana presented in court are the same articles confiscated from the appellants when the arresting officers did not place identifying marks on the confiscated items. Appellant Kizaki further contends that he was arrested two days after the alleged buy-bust operation

without a valid warrant of arrest. He points out that although the trial court expressed doubts as to the legality of his arrest, it nevertheless convicted him of the crime charged, which is in violation of the Constitution. Kizaki argues that he could not have been caught in flagrante delicto to justify the warrantless arrest when he was arrested two days after the alleged Cash and Carry incident while he was only having dinner with his friends at a restaurant.

obtained and testimonies from the prosecution, found him guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person only under the following circumstances: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Held:

None of the exceptions enumerated above was present to justify appellant Kizaki’s warrantless arrest. This deviation from the standard procedure in the antinarcotics operations produces doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Prosecution failed to prove the crucial first link in the chain of custody. The prosecution witnesses PO2 Supa and SPO2 Madlon admitted they did not write their initials on the brick of marijuana immediately after allegedly seizing from accused appellant outside the grocery store but only did so in their headquarters. The item allegedly seized from accused is the same brick of marijuana marked by the policemen in their headquarters and given by them to the crime laboratory for examination. The denial of appellant Kimura that he was caught in the Cash and Carry Supermarket delivering marijuana on the night of June 27, 1994 may be weak but the evidence for the prosecution is clearly even weaker. The constitutional presumption of innocence has not been overcome by the prosecution. In fine, for failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt of both appellants beyond reasonable doubt, they must perforce be exonerated from criminal liability. DECISION: REVERSED and ACQUITTED. PEOPLE V. RODRIGUEZA [205 SCRA 791; G.R. No. 95902; 4 Feb 1992] Facts: NARCOM agents staged a buy-bust operation, after gaining information that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas, Albay. The participating agents were given money treated with ultraviolet powder. One of the agents went to said location, asked for a certain Don. Thereafter, the Don, herein accused, met with him and “a certain object wrapped in a plastic” later identified as marijuana was given in exchange for P200. The agent went back to headquarters and made a report, based on which, a team was subsequently organized and a raid was conducted in the house of the father of the accused. During the raid, the NARCOM agents were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe among others. There was no authorization by any search warrant. The accused was found positive of ultraviolet powder. The lower court, considering the evidences

Issue: Whether or Not the lower court was correct in its judgment.

The NARCOM agents’ procedure in the entrapment of the accused failed to meet the qualification that the suspected drug dealer must be caught red-handed in the act of selling marijuana to a person posing as a buyer, since the operation was conducted after the actual exchange. Said raid also violated accused’ right against unreasonable search and seizure, as the situation did not fall in the circumstances wherein a search may be validly made even without a search warrant, i.e. when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when it involves prohibited articles in plain view. The NARCOM agents could not have justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the situation because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the place had already been put under surveillance for quite some time. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid, then they should, because they easily could, have first secured a search warrant during that time. The Court further notes the confusion and ambiguity in the identification of the confiscated marijuana leaves and other prohibited drug paraphernalia presented as evidence against appellant: CIC Taduran, who acted as the poseur buyer, testified that appellant sold him 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic bag. Surprisingly, and no plausible explanation has been advanced therefor, what were submitted to and examined by the PCCL and thereafter utilized as evidence against the appellant were the following items: One (1) red and white colored plastic bag containing the following: Exh. "A"—Thirty (30) grams of suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops contained inside a transparent plastic bag. Exh. "B"— Fifty (50) grams of suspected dried marijuana leaves and seeds contained inside a white colored plastic labelled "Robertson". Exh. "C"— Four (4) aluminum foils each containing suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total weight of seven grams then further wrapped with a piece of aluminum foil. Exh. "D"— Five (5) small transparent plastic bags each containing suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total weight of seventeen grams. Exh. "E"— One plastic syringe. Evidently, these prohibited articles were among those confiscated during the socalled follow-up raid in the house of Rodrigueza’s father. The unanswered question then arises as to the identity of the marijuana leaves that became the basis of appellant's conviction. In People vs. Rubio, this Court had the occasion to rule that the plastic bag and the dried marijuana leaves contained therein constitute the corpus delicti of the crime. As such, the existence thereof must be proved with certainty and conclusiveness. Failure to do so would be fatal to the cause of the prosecution. Conviction is reversed and set aside and accused is acquitted. GO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

[206 SCRA 138; G.R. NO. 101837; 11 FEB 1992] Facts: Petitioner, while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street, almost had a collision with another vehicle. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car, shot the driver of the other vehicle, and drove off. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down petitioner’s plate number and reported the same to the police, who subsequently ordered a manhunt for petitioner. 6 days after the shooting, petitioner presented himself in the police station, accompanied by 2 lawyers, the police detained him. Subsequently a criminal charge was brought against him. Petitioner posted bail, the prosecutor filed the case to the lower court, setting and commencing trial without preliminary investigation. Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has waived his right to preliminary investigation as bail has been posted and that such situation, that petitioner has been arrested without a warrant lawfully, falls under Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 7, Rule 112 of The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure pertaining to situations of lawful warrantless arrests. Petitioner in his petition for certiorari assails such procedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary investigation. Issue:

by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the undersigned complainant, a minor, against her will. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits followed. Manuel Calimlim guilty of four (4) counts of rape Issue: won the arrest was illegal for arrest was made one day after the crime was committed, but without any judicial warrant, although the police had ample time to get one and may the accused invoke art.3 sec 2 Held: But here it will be noted that appellant entered a plea of not guilty to each of the informations charging him of rape. Thus, he had effectively waived his right to question any irregularity which might have accompanied his arrest and the unlawful restraint of his liberty. This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. (Underlining supplied) Given the circumstances of his case now, the exceptions do not apply here and we are constrained to rule that appellant is estopped from raising the issue of the legality of his arrest.

Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful. Whether or Not petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation. Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v. Ramos, wherein the Court upheld the warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual commission of the offenses, which however constituted “continuing crimes,” i.e. subversion, membership in an outlawed organization, etc. There was no lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113. This is because the arresting officers were not actually there during the incident, thus they had no personal knowledge and their information regarding petitioner were derived from other sources. Further, Section 7, Rule 112, does not apply.

Petitioner was not arrested at all, as when he walked in the police station, he neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime. When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor, preliminary investigation should have been scheduled to determine probable cause. Prosecutor made a substantive error, petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation, necessarily in a criminal charge, where the same is required appear thereat. Petition granted, prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminary investigation, trial for the criminal case is suspended pending result from preliminary investigation, petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail bond.

People v Calimlim Facts: Accused was charged with 4 counts of rape allegedly That on or about the 2nd day of April, 1995, at the Poblacion of the municipality of Manaoag, province of Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,

Moreover, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.[44] The defenses claim of warrantless arrest which is illegal cannot render void all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of the appellant, nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to his culpability. People v vinalon Facts: That on or about the 24th day of September, 1997, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said appellants, conspiring, confederating with other persons whose true names, identities, whereabouts and other personal circumstances have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation against persons, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob PO1 Joseph H. Llave of the PNP National Capital Region Command, Norman A. Mapa and Reynaldo B. Elidio in the following manner, to wit: on the date in the place aforementioned, the said appellants, posing themselves as passengers boarded a Jell Transport passenger bus with Plate No. PXC-266 and while said bus was cruising along Commonwealth Avenue near Don Antonio Avenue, Brgy. Old Balara, this City, a public highway, appellants armed with handguns and bladed weapon announced a hold up and thereafter robbed and divested them of their personal properties to the damage and prejudice of the offended parties within the amount aforementioned; further that by reason or on the occasion of the said robbery, and for the purpose of enabling the said appellants to take, steal and carry away the aforementioned articles, the said appellants in pursuance of their conspiracy, with intent to kill and taking advantage of their superior strength, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one PO1 Joseph H. Llave by then and there shooting him on the different parts of his body thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter; that likewise on the same occasion of the

robbery appellants shot with the use of handguns Norman A. Mapa hitting him on the face and Antonio C. Hernandez hitting him on the hip thereby causing them serious physical injuries which have required medical attendance for a period of more than 30 days, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended parties. Upon arraignment, both appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued. Reynaldo Viñalon y San Agustin and Arnold Devera y Mocalen guilty of robbery with homicide Issue: won the warrantless arrest and the search and seizure incident valid Held: On this score, we have previously held that a warrantless arrest may be made by police officers based on their personal knowledge culled from the victim herself who pointed to the suspect as the assailant at the time of the arrest.33 In our view, the arrest of appellants done immediately after the incident was valid for it was made by the arresting officers after the victims of the robbery pointed to appellants as the malefactors. Accordingly, the search and seizure that ensued are valid as incidental to a lawful arrest. However, appellants seek to nullify the seizure of the objects allegedly taken from their possession. They claim they do not constitute admissible evidence as they were not duly receipted nor properly identified at the time they were taken. Cited in this regard is the case of People vs. Gesmundo,35 which stated that the officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure was made. Note, however, that Gesmundo involved a search and seizure made pursuant to a warrant, and not to a situation of seizure incidental to warrantless arrest, as in the present case. Here, arresting officer Amigo testified that indeed he seized the disputed items from appellants but he did not issue a receipt.36 He claimed that the seized items were entered in the logbook of the security guard of the hospital where appellants were arrested. But this claim was unsubstantiated, as the logbook was not presented nor made part of the record of the case. Not only did the credibility of his testimony suffer thereby, but this circumstance also negated the probative force and value of the said items as evidence for the prosecution. People v merndez People v Enrile Facts: Sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00 for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, Antonio Enrile faults the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for convicting him. 1 His co-accused, Rogelio Abugatal, was killed in an attempted jailbreak and this appeal is dismissed as to him. 2 We deal here only with Enrile.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library The evidence for the prosecution showed that at about half past six in the evening of October 25, 1985, a buy-bust team composed of Pat. Jaime Flores and Pat. Wilson Rances of the Quezon City Police Anti-Narcotics Unit was dispatched to entrap Rogelio Abugatal at Roosevelt Avenue in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City. The plan was made on the strength of a tip given by Renato Polines, a police informer, who was himself to pose as the buyer. 3chanrobles virtual law library In their separate testimonies, 4 both policemen said that on the occasion they saw Polines hand over to Abugatal the marked money representing payment for the mock transaction. Abugatal left with the money and returned ten minutes later

with a wrapped object which he gave Polines. The two policemen then approached Abugatal and placed him under arrest, at the same time confiscating the wrapped object. Subsequent laboratory examination revealed this to be marijuana with flowering tops weighing 22 grams. 5chanrobles virtual law library The prosecution also showed that, upon providing Abugatal led the policemen to a house at 20 De Vera Street, also in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City, where he called out for Antonio Enrile. Enrile came out and met them at the gate. Abugatal pointed to Enrile as the source of the marijuana, whereupon the policemen immediately arrested and frisked him. They found in the right front pocket of his trousers the marked money earlier delivered to Abugatal, with Serial No. PJ966425. 6chanrobles virtual law library At the police headquarters, Abugatal signed a sworn confession affirming the above narration. 7 Enrile refused to make any statement pending consultation with a lawyer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library In his defense, Enrile testified that the marked money was "planted" on him by the police officers, who he said simply barged into his house without a warrant and arrested him. He stoutly denied any knowledge of the marijuana. He claimed that at the time of the alleged incident, he was attending, as a dental technician, to a patient whom he was fitting for dentures. 8 The supposed patient, Alicia Tiempo, corroborated him. 9chanrobles virtual law library Enrile admitted that he had earlier been convicted of selling marijuana and that he had a pending application for probation. He suggested that this could be the reason the policemen sought to implicate him in the new charge and thus weaken his application. Issue: WON the arrest was valid Held: What the policemen should have done was secure a search warrant on the basis of the information supplied by Abugatal, and then, with such authority, proceeded to search and, if the search was fruitful, arrest Enrile. They had no right to simply force themselves into his house on the bare (and subsequently disallowed) allegations of Abugatal and bundle Enrile off to the police station as if he had been caught in flagrante delicto.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library The discovery of the marked money on him did not mean he was caught in the act of selling marijuana. The marked money was not prohibited per se. Even if it were, that fact alone would not retroactively validate the warrantless search and seizure.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

value on human rights and individual liberties and are obssessed only with the maintenance of peace and punishment of crime.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library These are laudible objectives in any well-ordered society. But it should never be pursued at the cost of dismantling the intricate apparatus for the protection of the individual from overzealous law-enforcers who mistakenly believe that suspected criminals have forfeited the safeguards afforded them by the Constitution. Lawenforcers are not licensed to themselves break the law to apprehend and punish law-breakers. Such a practice only leads to further defiance of the law by those who have been denied its protection.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library In the light of the proven circumstances of this case, the Court is not convinced that there is enough evidence to establish Enrile's guilt beyond the shadow of doubt. The paucity of such evidence only strengthens the suspicion that the marked money was really "planted" on Enrile by the police officers who were probably worried that their earlier efforts in securing Enrile's conviction as a drug pusher would be thwarted by his application for probation. PEOPLE VS PASUDAG GR No. 128822, May 4, 2001 FACTS: SPO2 Pepito Calip urinated at a bushy bamboo fence behind the public school. About five (5) meters away he saw a garden of about 70 square meters. There were marijuana plants in between corn plants and camote tops. He inquired from a storekeeper nearby as to who owned the house with the garden. The store owner told him that Pasudag owned it. A team was dispatched and the team arrived and went straight to the house of accused Pasudag. The police looked for accused Pasudag and asked him to bring the team to his backyard garden which was about five (5) meters away. upon seeing the marijuana plants, the policemen called for a photographer who took pictures of accused Pasudag standing beside one of the marijuana plants. %hey uprooted seven (") marijuana plants. The team brought accused Pasudag and the mari&uana plants to the police station. At the police station, accused Pasudag admitted, in the presence of Chief of Police Astrero, that he owned the marijuana plants. SPO Fajarito prepared a confiscation report which accused Pasudag signed.

accused1appellant. The arrest of accused1appellant was tainted with constitutional infirmity. The testimony of SPO Jovencio Fajarito reveals that appellant was not duly informed of his constitutional rights. 0t has been held repeatedly that custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation and the police officers begin to as, questions on the suspect3s participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission. Obviously accused1appellant was a suspect from the moment the police team went to his house and ordered the uprooting of the marijuana plants in his backyard garden. PEOPLE VS. AMMINUDIN [163 SCRA 402; G.R. L-74869; 6 Jul 1988] Facts: Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their informers simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. An information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a 'thorough investigation." The motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant, who was eventually convicted . In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants. He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the marijuana, the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as he parried the blows while he was still handcuffed. He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes. However the RTC rejected his allegations. Saying that he only has two watches during that time and that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained. Issue:

ISSUE: won the arrest and seizure valid Whether or not search of defendant’s bag is legal.

The principle has been honored through the ages in all liberty-loving regimes that a man's house is his castle that not even the mighty monarch, with all its forces, may violate. There were measures available under the law to enable the authorities to search Enrile's house and to arrest him if he was found in possession of prohibited articles. The police did not employ these measures.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library What they did was simply intrude into Enrile's house and arrest him without the slightest heed to the injunctions of the Bill of Rights. By so doing, they were using the tactics of the police state, where the minions of the government place little

HELD: As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers or effects of any individual. 0n the case at bar the police authorities had ample opportunity to secure from the court a search warrant. SPO2 Pepito Calip inquired as to who owned the house. He was acquainted with marijuana plants and immediately recognized that some plants in the backyard of the house were marijuana plants. time was not of the essence to uproot and confiscate the plants. %hey were three months old and there was no sufficient reason to believe that they would be uprooted on that same day. With the illegal seizure of the marijuana plants subject of this case, the seized plants are inadmissible in evidence against

Held: The search was illegal. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto, which could allow warrantless arrest or search. At the moment of his arrest, he was not committing a crime. Nor was he about to do so or had just done so. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against the defendant, and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged.